From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:25 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:39:46 -0400
Subject: Investigator's Right & Debunking Hypocrisy


>From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:23:01 -0400
>Subject: Re: Investigator's Right To Investigate

>>From: Mike Bird <mikebird@interlog.com>
>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>>Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:33:00 -0400
>>Subject: Investigator's Right To Investigate

>>It could very well turn out that Oliveira's claims are
>>fradulent. But in the search for truth, all researchers should
>>be allowed the right to investigate, and to report on their
>>findings. I believe that A.J. Gaveard owes Linda Moulton Howe
>>and and all other UFO researchers an apology.

>>His efforts to smear and prevent Linda from presenting this case
>>to the MUFON Conference are unprecidented. It is an affront to
>>MUFON and to all researchers.

>Mike, List and Readers;

>At some point in the investigation of _any_ subject, there has
>be a time when a decision is made, one way or another. Leaving
>it open indefinitely will not add to the "body of knowledge". It
>only serves to increase the noise level, and Ufology already
>suffers from a large excess of noise as it is.

>A.J. has presented far too much evidence here that the Oliveira
>case is rife with fraud, especially when you view it in the
>entire context of Urandir's operations. Add to this that, by
>_any_ journalistic standard, Linda's investigative methods are
>open to question, her interpretations of the analysis have been
>disputed, sometimes hotly, by the writers of the reports, and
>you end up with a investigation that should be, in my opinion,
>shut down completely.

>Does Linda have the right to continue her "investigations"? Of
>course she does - this is a free country, and there are no rules
>in Ufology that can prevent her. But... Linda's continued
>support of an obvious fraud can only serve to harm the UFO
>Community. It is hoped that she will eventually listen to the
>Community, and move on.

>I have no doubt that Linda can present a nicely packaged
>presentation. I also have no doubt that one can make an
>equally convincing presentation on the Piltdown Man...
>Some good may eventually come out of all this.If nothing else,
>in condemning Linda's methods and conclusions, a large portion
>of a very diverse UFO Community has been united, at least
>temporarily, which, you have to admit, is pretty darn hard to
>do!

My, what sanctimonious and hypocritical piffle from a hard-core
UFO debunker. This is the same Bruce Hutchinson, BTW, who tried
to pretend that Charles Moore didn't hoax his Mogul Flight #4
trajectory calculation to "prove" that it sparked the Roswell
incident.

Just to remind people, Hutchinson and Tim Printy teamed up to
attack me here on UpDates last October after I exposed Moore's
unquestionable hoax on my website.

(www.roswellproof.com/flight4_trajectory.html)

For a list of posts in this debate, see the"Math vs. Moore" and
"Mogul Mangled Math" posts between Oct. 9 and Nov. 10:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/cgi-bin/search-email.cgi?index=/ufo/updates/&key=drudiak

Because the debate reduces to whether the math was wrong or not,
Hutchinson and Printy were as defenseless as new-born babes.
After an opening salvo of inept ridicule and propaganda,

(http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m04-004.shtml)

Hutchinson quickly jumped ship, leaving Printy to try to argue
the math on his own.

It was not a pretty sight. Printy got caught doing a little math
cheating of his own in last stand attempt to save what was left
of Moore's model. Printy last posted on Nov. 7 and then fled
from the debate after disingenuously claiming that I had
actually proven Moore right! Oh yes, he never did make a single
correction or retraction on his website after the debate.

Another disingenuous Moore apologist is Dave Thomas, who
likewise attacked me in the March/April 2003 issue of that noble
rag of "science" and "reason," the Skeptical Inquirer. Thomas
reproduced his article at his website

http://www.nmsr.org/sf- gun.htm)

I recently became aware of the article and am drafting a letter
of response to the Inquirer right now. Thomas did exactly the
same thing as Printy, claiming that since he could reproduce
Moore's (bogus) calculation, Moore was right and I was
mathematically "incompetent." The problem was, Moore's
calculation was full of "mistakes" and the mathematical
equivalent of 2 + 2 = 3. All the fatal math mistakes were
pointed out on my website, but Thomas, naturally, doesn't
mention a single one of them, calling them only "quibbles" and
"shrill accusations."

This, of course, is the way Debunker Science usually operates,
by deliberately ducking the real arguments.

(If you read Thomas' article, do note that Moore "didn't want to
get into the math" when Thomas spoke to him. This is a tacit
admission by Moore that he can't defend his math, instead
letting propaganda lackeys like Thomas and Printy try to do it
for him.)

Concerning the Printy/Hutchinson/Thomas/Skeptical Inquirer
(henceforth known as PHUTSI) attempts to defend an obvious
scientific hoax, I could just as easily and sanctimoniously
write, as Hutchinson did:

"At some point in the investigation of _any_ subject, there has
to be a time when a decision is made, one way or another.
Leaving it open indefinitely will not add to the 'body of
knowledge'. It only serves to increase the noise level, and
Skepobunkery already suffers from a large excess of noise as it
is.

"D.R.. has presented far too much evidence here that the Moore
case is rife with fraud. Add to this that, by _any_ journalistic
standard, PHUTSI's investigative methods are open to question,
their interpretations of the analysis have been disputed and
proven to be utter mathematical and scientific bilge, and you
end up with an 'investigation' that should, in my most humble
and estimable opinion, be shut down completely.

"Do PHUTSI have the right to continue their 'investigations'? Of
course they do - this is a free country, as long as one doesn't
scare the horses and there are no women and children present.
But... PHUTSI's continued support of an obvious fraud can only
serve to harm the Skeptobunkery Community. It is hoped that they
will eventually learn to do math, cop to the Moore hoax, and
move on.

"There is no doubt that PHUTSI can present a nicely packaged
presentation that 2 + 2 = 3. No doubt that they can make an
equally convincing presentation on the Piltdown Man, or the
correct accounting of Enron and Global Crossing...

"Some good may eventually come out of all this. If nothing else,
the Skeptobunkery community may finally come to its senses, at
least temporarily, and unite in condemnation of PHUTSI's
pseudoscientific methods and conclusions, all done in the name
of 'science and reason.' However, this, you have to admit, would
be pretty darn hard to do!"


David Rudiak